INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON FIRST AND SECOND LAN-GUAGES: EXPLORING THE RELATIONSHIP IN

PEDAGOGY-RELATED CONTEXTS

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONUNIVERSITY OF OXFORD

27-28 MARCH, 2009

Morphological awareness and second language receptive and productive vocabulary knowledge in Japanese learners of English

Yuko HayashiUniversity of Oxford

Victoria A. Murphy University of Oxford

ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCEYuko HayashiDepartment of EducationUniversity of Oxford15 Norham GardensOxfordOX2 6PY

E-mail: yuko.hayashi@education.ox.ac.ukTel: 07949102102

ABSTRACT

Despite the considerable body of vocabulary research, specific relationships between

different types of vocabulary knowledge (VK) (i.e., receptive and productive) and mor-

phological awareness (MA) are not well understood. This is particularly so for learners

of a second language, and in particular Japanese ESL learners (JESLLs). Therefore, this

study focussed on these aspects of VK and found that on tests of both VK and MA. As

predicted, the JESLLs demonstrated more knowledge of receptive than productive

vocabulary. In addition, productive MA was positively related to both receptive and

productive VK for the JESLLs differing from the pattern observed for the native speak-

ers (NSs) of English, whose receptive MA correlated with both types of VK. Further-

more, the JESLLs were more adept at morphological segmentation than a comparison

group of NSs, a finding which highlights the influence of instruction in developing MA.

These findings are discussed in terms of considerations of both breadth and depth of VK

in relation to MA, a key aspect of many other linguistic skills (e.g., reading).

INTRODUCTION

In trying to better understand the nature of vocabulary knowledge (VK), researchers are

interested in both a) how many words learners know (i.e., breadth of vocabulary know-

ledge), often indicated by their knowledge of form and meaning of lexical items; and b)

how well learners know particular words (i.e., depth), which entails various receptive

and productive subcomponents of word knowledge. One essential subcomponent has

been argued to be morphological awareness (MA), which includes knowledge of inflec-

tional and derivational forms of base words (Nation, 1990, 2001). Despite the fact that

MA plays an important role in the development of learners’ vocabulary knowledge, to-

gether with literacy-related skills (e.g., reading and spelling) (e.g., Wang, Cheng, &

Chen, 2006), comparatively little research has really looked at the relationship between

breadth and depth of VK in relation to MA. Specifically, we feel that more work needs

to be carried out to identify more precisely the relationship between both receptive and

productive VK and different aspects of MA, and in particular, the nature of this relation-

ship in second language (L2) learners.

The present study describes the nature of VK via Henriksen’s (1996, 1999) model

of vocabulary acquisition (reproduced as Figure 1), which represents three separate but

related continua: 1) partial-precise; 2) depth-of-knowledge; and 3) receptive-productive.

1

Henriksen’s model infers that the receptive-productive continuum concerns different

levels of control over and access to VK that learners possess, as demonstrated by their

performance on different kinds of tasks. The depth-of-knowledge continuum includes

various subcomponents of word knowledge (e.g., pronunciation, associations, syntactic

and morphological knowledge) and contributes to knowledge of word meaning, which

develops along the partial-precise continuum.

I. The partial-precise continuum;

II. The receptive-productive continuum

III. The depth-of-knowledge continuum

Figure 1. A model of vocabulary acquisition (Henriksen, 1996)

2

RECEPTIVE AND PRODUCTIVE VOCABULARY SIZE

As is often observed in first language (L1) learners, L2 learners, too, possess a larger re-

ceptive vocabulary size (VS) than productive VS, thus representing a gap (e.g., Laufer,

1998; Laufer & Paribakht, 1998). There is emerging evidence adding more detail to this

prevailing notion. Waring (1997), for instance, suggested that there was a reasonable

chance (64.5%) that upper-intermediate learners of English as a foreign language (EFL)

knew high-frequency words both receptively and productively. Webb (2008), using re-

ceptive (L2 L1) and productive (L1 L2) translation tests, found that when their

partial knowledge was considered, Japanese EFL learners possessed productive know-

ledge of almost all the words (93%) that they knew receptively.1 This led Webb to sug-

gest that explicit vocabulary teaching in the EFL context might contribute to the bal-

anced development of receptive and productive VS. It appears that L2 learners’ recept-

ive and productive VK of some L2 (high-frequency) words overlap and interact with

one another, moving along the continua of receptive-productive and precise-partial di-

mensions, as captured well in the Henriksen model above. This model is explored in

more detail below with reference to MA as an aspect related to depth of VK and its rela-

tionship with VS.

1 In this scoring system, learners’ incorrect spelling and grammatical forms were marked as correct as long as their meaning was correctly indicated.

3

MORPHOLOGICAL AWARENESS

Morphological awareness (MA) refers to the ability to distinguish and manipulate the

structure of morphemes, the smallest meaning-bearing units in language (e.g., un- and

happy in unhappy), and includes knowledge of inflectional and derivational morphemes

(McBride-Chang, Wagner, Muse, Chow, & Shu, 2005). Inflectional morphemes usually

serve a grammatical function such as marking tense (walk walked) or number (cat

cats), and adding an inflectional suffix to a word stem does not alter the word’s overall

syntactic category (Katamba, 1993). Derivational morphemes form words differently

(Koda, 2000): either by a) altering the syntactic category (i.e., class-changing morph-

emes) (e.g., happy-happiness); or b) changing the meaning of the base without changing

the syntactic category (i.e., class-maintaining morphemes) (e.g., happy-unhappy).

The relationship between affixes and their base also has psycholinguistic aspects

(Marslen-Wilson, Tyler, Waksler, & Older, 1994). Among these, the present study fo-

cuses on frequency (i.e., the number of words in which an affix occurs), productivity

(i.e., the degree to which an affix is used to form new words) and semantic transparency

(happiness (transparent); release (opaque)) since the combination of these factors is ar-

gued to influence the way in which morphologically complex words are processed in

the mental lexicon (Lowie, 2000) (see Marslen-Wilson, 2007 and Murphy, 2004 for psy-

4

cholinguistic accounts of this issue).

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MORPHOLOGICAL AWARENESS AND VOCABULARY SIZE

Schmitt and Meara (1997) demonstrated that receptive and productive MA were each

positively related with receptive VS, although an increase in VS over time did not con-

tribute to narrowing the gap between receptive and productive MA in Japanese EFL

learners. This relationship could perhaps be explored in more detail by using a product-

ive measure of VS as well. Schmitt and Meara also argue that Japanese learners possess

stronger awareness of inflectional suffixes than derivational affixes, due to the idiosyn-

cratic nature of the latter, as opposed to the rule-based nature of the former. More re-

cently, Schmitt and Zimmerman (2002) suggest that L2 learners undergo significant

challenges in acquiring productive knowledge of derivational affixes (considering the

fact that even native speakers demonstrated imperfect productive knowledge of these),

and that attending to form through instruction might help enhance this knowledge in L2

learners. This pedagogical implication, as well as a similar suggestion by Webb (2008)

regarding VS (i.e., the potential role of explicit vocabulary teaching in the balanced de-

velopment of receptive and productive VS), supports claims made by SLA researchers

about form-focused input in the L2 classroom (e.g., Doughty & Williams, 1998). Taking

5

into account the type of L2 instruction that learners receive should, therefore, provide a

basis for better understanding their developing VS and MA.

The present study explores the nature of the relationship between receptive and

productive VS and MA in the context of Japanese learners of English as an L2 (ESL).

This is a comparatively under-researched issue, yet investigating it contributes to ob-

taining a clearer picture of the nature of VK in L2. In doing so, it also investigates to

what extent these learners’ receptive and productive VS converge or diverge across

words of differing frequencies. Their depth of VK is examined in relation to MA, with

a consideration of morphological properties inherent in words such as frequency, pro-

ductivity and semantic transparency, as well as inflections and derivations.

METHODOLOGY

The present study was designed to answer the following specific questions:

(1) To what extent is receptive vocabulary size different from productive vocabulary size among Japanese ESL learners and native speakers of English respectively?a. If it is different, how do receptive and productive vocabulary size differ across

frequency levels between the two groups?

(2) Do these participants’ receptive and productive morphological awareness differ de-pending on the type of affixes included in the word? a. Can it also be explained by the influence of frequency and productivity of af-

fixes and semantic transparency?

6

(3) Is the relationship between morphological awareness and vocabulary size found for these learners different from that for native speakers?

Participants

42 participants were involved in this study: 22 Japanese ESL learners (JESLLs) of inter-

mediate proficiency at a language school in Oxford, UK (3 males and 19 females; mean

age = 28.8) and a comparison group of 20 adult native speakers (NSs) of English in Ox-

fordshire and Cheshire (10 males and 10 females; mean age = 29.5). Their teachers in-

formed us that they explicitly taught the JESLLs formal aspects of morphology regu-

larly in their vocabulary classes, using various morphological tasks. These teachers

used no morphological tasks in class during this study. The JESLLs’ length of residence

in Oxford and years of learning English were, on average, 8.2 months (SD = 14.3) and

11.1 years (SD = 5.1) respectively.

Instruments

A short background questionnaire and four tasks were used in this study. Two vocabu-

lary tasks were used, namely Schmitt, Schmitt and Clapham’s (2001) Vocabulary Levels

Test (VLT) as a receptive measure of VS and Laufer and Nation’s (1995) productive

version of the Vocabulary Levels Test (PVLT) as a productive measure. Both tests con-

sist of five levels of word frequency in English: the 2,000-word level; the 3,000-word

7

level; Academic Vocabulary (AV)/University Word Level (UWL) (for the PVLT); the

5,000-word level; and the 10,000-word level. The VLT involves matching a word with

its correct definition from multiple choices. There are 150 test items in total (30 items

at each frequency level). The PVLT, which has 90 test items in total, involves produ-

cing correct word completions elicited in short sentences: 'He was riding a bi (bi-

cycle)'.

Two additional tasks were a Word Segmentation (WS) task, as a receptive measure

of MA, and an Affix Elicitation (AE) task, as a productive measure. The WS task in-

volves segmenting a word into morphological components, e.g., ' wondering _____

(wonder ＋ing)'. The AE task, modelled on Nation’s (2001, p. 100) morphological task,

involves filling in the blanks by producing appropriate affixed forms, using cues

provided in brackets, e.g., 'I went to the doctor for a _________ <consult> (consulta-

tion)'. The sentences used were sampled from the British National Corpus and kept as

unambiguous as possible to avoid any confusion caused by syntax or semantics when

participants accessed their morphological knowledge.

Prefixes and suffixes in both morphological tasks were selected, based on the fol-

lowing levels of English affixes (Bauer & Nation, 1993):

Level 2 Inflectional suffixes

8

Level 3 The most frequent and regular derivational affixes

Level 4 Frequent orthographically regular affixes

Level 5 Regular but infrequent affixes

Level 6 Frequent but irregular affixes

Level 7 Classical roots and affixes

Derivational affixes chosen from this list were further classified into class-main-

taining and class-changing derivational affixes, a distinction that is lacking in this list.

The frequency of the target affixed items was checked with data by Francis and Kučera

(1982). The 34 target items appearing on the AE task were designed to elicit 10 inflec-

tional suffixes, 12 class-maintaining and 12 class-changing derivational affixes. In-

cluded in the 34 target items on the WS task were a total of 50 target affixes to be iden-

tified through segmentation: 10 inflectional suffixes, 17 class-maintaining and 23 class-

changing derivational affixes. The total sum of target affixes differs from that of the

target items since the former reflects a number of affixes included in each target item,

which varies across items, depending on their internal morphological complexities, such

as unkind (one prefix) and irregularly (two affixes). The target derivational forms in

both tasks consisted of 6 nouns, 6 verbs, 6 adjectives, and 6 adverbs. A classification of

the target affixes into Bauer and Nation’s levels is given in Table 1.

Table 1. The number of affixes included according to Bauer and Nation’s (1993) levels

Tasks Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6 Level 7WS 10 9 8 9 8 6

9

AE 10 5 4 9 2 4

Procedure

All tasks were administered by the researcher. A short background questionnaire and

the four tasks were group-administered to the JESLLs at their language school. All the

tasks were completed within two weeks, with two sessions (the PVLT and VLT) held on

the same day and the other two sessions (the AE and WS tasks) held a week later. The

NSs completed the four tasks in two sessions (the PVLT and VLT in one session and the

AE and WS tasks in the other) in two groups (one group in Oxfordshire and the other in

Cheshire). At the beginning of each session, participants received a brief explanation of

the tasks, followed by a few examples from the researcher in Japanese for the JESLLs

and in English for the NSs. There was no time limit on any of the tasks.

These morphological tasks were pilot-tested prior to the data collection with 8

JESLLs and 6 NSs, none of whom were involved in the actual study. As a result, modi -

fication was made, especially by way of making clearer the semantics and syntax of

some of the sentences appearing on the AE task.

RESULTS

The participants’ responses to the PVLT and VLT were scored as either correct or incor-

10

rect. In the PVLT, as in Laufer (1998), responses expressed in the incorrect grammat-

ical form (e.g., debt for debts) or spelling (e.g., suppliment for supplement) were marked

as correct if their meaning was correctly indicated. As in Webb (2008), we employed

two scoring systems for the WS task: crude and sensitive. In the crude scoring system,

the participants’ responses were marked as either correct or incorrect, compared against

responses from two NS judges with expertise in Applied Linguistics. In the sensitive

scoring system, one point was awarded to each affix correctly identified through seg-

mentation. For example, the segmentation 'irregular + ly' was awarded one point due to

the correct identification of the derivational suffix -ly (hence two points for 'ir + regular

+ ly'). Only the strict scoring system applied to the AE task, due to the availability of

cues as a prompt to elicit target items.

Vocabulary tasks

The means and standard deviations for the VLT and PVLT scores are presented in Table

2. The total scores on both tasks were converted into percentages to allow for comparis-

ons across both tests to be made. The VLT data were analysed using an analysis

Table 2. Means and standard deviations for scores on the VLT and PVLT

JESLLs (n=22) NSs (n=20)VLT PVLT VLT PVLT

11

Frequency levels Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

2,000 26.1 3.67 13 2.65 29.8 0.55 18 03,000 22 5.1 8.27 4.31 29.8 0.91 17.8 0.55AV/UWL 20.6 6.34 7.45 3.69 29.2 1.55 17.5 0.765,000 16.8 5.76 3 2.7 29.6 0.99 17.6 0.8310,000 8 3.95 0.2 0.5 29.6 1 16.3 2.24Total (%) 62.4 14.67 35.4 13.48 98.6 2.1 96.7 4.2

Note. A maximum score at each frequency level was 30 for the VLT and 18 for the PVLT.

of variance (ANOVA) with one repeated-measures variable (Word Category: 2,000-

word, 3,000-word, Academic Vocabulary (AV), 5,000-word, and 10,000-word levels),

and one between-subjects variable (Group: JESLLs and NSs).

There was a main effect of word category, F(4, 160) =110.54, p < .001, and group,

F(1, 40) = 119.25, p < .001. Furthermore, a significant Group × Word Category interac-

tion was found, F(4, 160) = 107.13, p < .001. The NSs’ performance was at a ceiling

across frequency levels, as manifested by almost perfect (mean) scores achieved across

the frequency levels (see Table 2). As for the JESLLs’ performance, while their mean

scores on the 3,000-word level and AV did not differ significantly, p >.05., the second

smallest difference in the means, which lay between the AV and 5,000-word level,

reached statistical significance, t(21) = 4.91, p < .001. One can, therefore, extrapolate

that the JESLLs’ performance significantly dropped with decreasing frequency (except

between the 3,000-word level and AV).

A similar ANOVA was conducted with the PVLT data. A main effect of word cat-

12

egory, F(4, 160) = 118.70, p < .001, and group, F(1, 40) = 379.65, p < .001 was ob-

served. Moreover, there was a significant Group × Word Category interaction, F(4,

160) = 74.95, p < .001. When looking only at the JESLL data, as observed in the VLT,

their VS dropped as the frequency level decreased, except between the 3,000-word level

and UWL, where their mean scores did not differ significantly, p > .05. The NSs’ per-

formance, in contrast, reached ceiling at all frequency levels but the 10,000-word level,

as manifested by almost perfect (mean) scores achieved at all these four frequency

levels (see Table 2). The difference between the JESLLs’ total scores on the VLT and

PVLT reached statistical significance, t(21) = 22.0, p < .001, suggesting that their re-

ceptive VS was significantly larger than their productive VS. The NSs’ receptive VS,

too, was significantly larger than their productive VS, t(19) = 2.41, p < .05.

Pearson correlations were calculated and receptive VS strongly correlated with

productive VS for the JESLLs, r = .92, p < .001. A weaker, but still significant correla-

tion was found for the NSs, r = .56, p < .001. Therefore, for both groups of participants,

as scores on the receptive measure increased, scores on the productive measure also in-

creased, illustrating a positive relationship between receptive and productive VS.

Morphological tasks

The data from the WS task (sensitive scores, a sum of scores awarded to each affix type)

13

were analysed using an ANOVA with one repeated-measures variable (Affix Type: in-

flectional suffixes, class-maintaining and class-changing affixes) and one between-sub-

jects variable (Group: JESLLs and NSs).

A main effect of affix type, F(2, 80) = 22.43, p < .001, and group, F(1, 40) = 14.29,

p < .01 was observed. There was a significant Group × Affix Type interaction, F(2, 80)

= 7.92, p < .01. These effects are shown in Figure 2. The JESLLs scored most highly

on inflectional suffixes and performed significantly better on class-maintaining affixes

than class-changing affixes, t(21) = 5.2, p < .001. Their mean scores on inflectional suf-

fixes and class-maintaining affixes did not differ significantly, p > .05. The

Figure 2. Mean percentage of correct responses to the WS taskNSs, in contrast, performed highly only on class-maintaining affixes. No significant

difference was found between the means for inflectional suffixes and class-changing af-

14

fixes p > .05. When comparing scores between the groups, independent-samples t-tests

indicated that the JESLLs performed significantly better on the class-changing affixes than

did the NSs, t(40) = 3.01, p < .01, whereas no significant between-subject difference was

found for the class-maintaining affixes, p >.05. One can extrapolate from this difference

that the larger between-subject difference in the means for the inflectional suffixes was sig-

nificant, too. The Cronbach Alpha reliability coefficient for this task was .89.

A similar ANOVA was conducted with data from the AE task. There was a main

effect of affix type, F(2, 80) = 33.32, p < .001, and group, F(1, 40) = 166.11, p < .001.

Furthermore, a significant Group × Affix Type interaction was found, F(2, 80) = 29.94,

p < .001. These effects are illustrated in Figure 3. The NSs scored highly on inflec-

tional suffixes and class-changing affixes (no significant differences in the means

between these types of affixes, p > .05), contrasting with their performance on the WS

task. The NSs performed significantly better on class-changing affixes than class-main-

taining affixes, t(19) = 2.91, p < .01, whereas their mean scores did not differ significantly

between inflectional suffixes and class-maintaining affixes, p > .05. The JESLLs per-

formed well

15

Figure 3. Mean percentage of correct responses to the AE task

only on inflectional suffixes. Their mean scores on inflectional suffixes were signific-

antly higher than those on class-maintaining affixes, t(21) = 7.75, p < .01. The differ-

ence in the means between class-maintaining and class-changing affixes did not reach

statistical significance, p > .05. The smallest between-subject difference lay in the means

for the inflectional suffixes and this difference reached statistical significance, t(40) = －

5.62, p < .001. Hence, one can extrapolate that the NSs significantly outperformed the

JESLL on the other affix types as well. The Cronbach Alpha reliability coefficient for

this task was high at .96.

Influence of frequency, productivity and semantic transparency

Participants’ responses to the WS and AE tasks were analysed more qualitatively to ex-

plore the influence of frequency, productivity and semantic transparency on them (see

16

table 1 for a classification of test items into Bauer and Nation’s (1993) levels of affixes).

On the WS task, both groups received full marks in the two scoring systems on the

following items: disorder (level 7), enable (level 5), rewrite (level 6) and childhood

(level 5). Although these items differ in terms of frequency and productivity (both de-

crease as the level increases), they can all be considered semantically transparent in

terms of the relationship between the affixes and their base. In comparison to this facil-

itative influence of semantic transparency, the influence of frequency and productivity

on participants’ performance was less consistent. Despite having received instructions

on the task together with examples at the beginning of the testing session, the NSs seem

to have still been influenced more by phonological properties of test items, as indicated

by their syllabic segmentation (e.g., 'won + der + ing', 'con + ven + tion', and 'dis + sim

+ i + lar'), whereas the JESLLs typically segmented items into morphological compon-

ents across levels (e.g., 'wonder + ing' (level 2), 'conven + tion' (level 7), and 'dis+ sim-

ilar' (level 5)).

Individual responses to the AE task, too, render the influence of frequency and pro-

ductivity unclear since they lacked a uniformly decreasing relationship across levels.

The JESLLs provided the derivational form unfortunately (un level 3) more correctly

than irrelevant (ir- level 5). On the other hand, a different tendency in responses was

17

observed within the same frequency and productivity level (e.g., -hood and -ent at level

5): the former exhibited only naturally-occurring forms as answers (neighbourhood or

neighborhood), whereas the latter triggered various non-existing forms (e.g., absorbly

and absorbate). The NSs performed highly regardless of level, which offers little in-

sight into the influence of frequency and productivity. Semantic transparency was not

examined here since the bases of target morphological items were provided as cues in

the AE task. It should be noted that the above analyses of both tasks are based on a

small number of affixes at each level, thus only providing a limited picture of parti-

cipants’ MA in terms of frequency, productivity and semantic transparency.

Vocabulary size and morphological awareness

Productive MA correlated highly with both receptive (r =.84, p < .001) and productive

VS (r =.83, p < .001) among the JESLLs. In contrast, it was receptive MA (only sensi-

tive scores) that moderately correlated with the NSs’ receptive (r =.46, p < .05) and pro-

ductive VS (r =.58, p < .01). Regression analyses were conducted to examine the extent

to which MA could be accounted for by receptive and productive VS. As for the

JESLLs, these two types of VS explained 73% (F(2, 19) = 25.8, p < .001) of the vari-

ance in their productive MA. Among the NSs, the two types of VS explained 36% (F(2,

18

17) = 4.79, p < .05) of the variance in their receptive MA.

DISCUSSION

Although the results indicated, as predicted, that the JESLLs’ receptive VS was signific-

antly larger than their productive VS, the gap narrowed at the 2,000-word level, where

the ratio of both types of VS was reasonably high (72%). The percentage lowered with

decreasing frequency, which is in line with Waring (1997) and Webb (2008). The posit-

ive correlation between the JESLLs’ receptive and productive VS, together with the rel-

atively high ratio between receptive and productive size for high-frequency words, sup-

port the notion that receptive and productive vocabulary knowledge (VK) overlap and

interact considerably with one another. This can best be viewed as the movement of re-

ceptive and productive vocabularies along a continuum.

Consistent with Schmitt and Meara (1997), the JESLLs demonstrated stronger

awareness of inflectional morphology than derivational morphology on both morpholo-

gical tasks, perhaps due to its rule-based nature, in comparison to the idiosyncratic

nature of derivational morphology. Such a tendency was not observed among the NSs.

Semantic transparency appears to have been somewhat indicative of participants’ per-

formance on the WS task, suggesting that morphological components are likely to be re-

cognised if the relationship between affixes and their base is semantically transparent.

19

Neither frequency nor productivity accounted for the participants’ performance on the

WS or AE task. The JESLLs’ lower performance on the AE task could be explained by

a heavy cognitive demand placed on the JESLLs when accessing their productive mor-

phological knowledge (see Figure 1). Thus, the participants’ performance on both tasks

was perhaps largely an artefact of the nature of the tasks as well as, for the JESLLs, of

affix types. An additional factor underlying the participants’ performance could be their

degree of metalinguistic awareness. The JESLLs’ strong awareness of morphological

segments, as manifested on the WS task, could be related to their regular exposure to

explicit instruction about inflectional and derivational morphemes in their L2 vocabu-

lary classes. This notion is clearly consistent with claims about form-focused instruc-

tion in L2 classrooms. However, the fact that the JESLLs, despite having received ex-

plicit instruction on formal aspects of morphology, did not do as well on the AE task,

suggests that instruction must be targeted to specific skills and knowledge (receptive/

productive). This area would indeed profit from well-considered research on the role

that instruction can play on developing receptive and productive morphological know-

ledge.

The relationship between MA and VS contrasted across the two groups: productive

MA was positively associated with the JESLLs’ receptive and productive VS, whereas

20

receptive MA (sensitive scores) was positively related to the NSs’ receptive and pro-

ductive VS. The lack of relationship for the NSs with their crude scores suggests that

activating (explicit) knowledge of morphological segments probably does not coincide

with the way in which the NSs use/recognise their L1 lexical items. The relationship for

the JESLLs can be visualised via Henriksen’s model (Figure 1): productive MA as part

of depth of vocabulary knowledge, which perhaps requires the level of complete pro-

ductive control in a number of contexts, can contribute to the development of receptive

and productive knowledge of form and meaning of L2 lexical items (i.e., breadth). The

present study thus demonstrated the interrelatedness of breadth (VS) and depth of VK in

relation to MA, which are both subcomponents essential for the development of vocabu-

lary (and general linguistic) knowledge.

CONCLUSION

The present study illuminated a contrasting relationship between receptive and product-

ive vocabulary size and morphological awareness between the JESLLs and NSs. One

could argue that the JESLLs’ developing L2 mental lexicon is not simply a less de-

veloped version of the L1 mental lexicon but there might be some qualitative differ-

ences in the organisation of L1 and L2 mental lexicons. Our findings are consistent

with the notion that the L2 mental lexicon is characterised by higher degrees of metalin-

21

guistic awareness that includes explicit knowledge of morphological segments. Some

limitations should be noted in this study, particularly regarding its small sample size, the

use of American English frequency data (Francis & Kučera, 1982) for the JESLLs in the

UK, and the limited vocabulary profile envisaged via the VLT and PVLT. Further work

that remedies these limitations should be developed for a more comprehensive under-

standing of the nature of morphological awareness and its relationship with different as-

pects of vocabulary knowledge.

22

REFERENCES

Bauer, L., & Nation, P. (1993). Word families. International Journal of Lexicography, 6(4), 253-279.

Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998). (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second lan-guage acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Francis, W. N., & Kucera, H. (1982). Frequency analysis of english usage: Lexicon and grammar. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Henriksen, B. (1996). Semantisation, retention, and accessibility: Key concepts in vo-cabulary learning. Paper presented at the AILA Congress, Jyvaskyla, Finland.

Henriksen, B. (1999). Three dimensions of vocabulary development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21(2), 303-317.

Katamba, F. (1993). Morphology. Basingstoke: Macmillan.

Koda, K. (2000). Cross-linguistic variations in L2 morphological awareness. Applied Psycholinguistics, 21(3), 297-320.

Laufer, B. (1998) The development of passive and active vocabulary in a second lan-guage: Same or different? Applied Linguistics, 19(2), 255-271.

Laufer, B., & Nation, P. (1995). Vocabulary size and use: Lexical richness in L2 written production. Applied Linguistics, 16(3), 307-322.

Laufer, B., & Paribakht, T. S. (1998). The relationship between passive and active vo-cabularies: Effects of language learning context. Language Learning, 48(3), 365-391.

Lowie, W. (2000). Cross-linguistic influence on morphology in the bilingual mental lexicon. Studia Linguistica, 54(2), 175-185.

Marslen-Wilson, W., Tyler, L. K., Waksler, R., & Older, L. (1994). Morphology and meaning in the English mental lexicon. Psychological Review, 101(1), 3-33.

Marslen-Wilson, W. (2007). Morphological processes in language comprehension. In G. Gaskell (Ed.), Oxford handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 175-193). Oxford: Ox-ford University Press.

McBride-Chang, C., Wagner, R. K., Muse, A., Chow, B. W. Y., & Shu, H. (2005). The role of morphological awareness in children's vocabulary acquisition in English. Applied Psycholinguistics, 26(3), 415-435.

Murphy, V. A. (2004). Dissociable systems in second language inflectional morphol-ogy. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(3), 433-459.

Nation, I. S. P. (1990). Teaching and learning vocabulary. Massachusetts: Newbury House.

Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cam-bridge University Press.

Schmitt, N., & Meara, P. (1997). Researching vocabulary through a word knowledge framework. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 17-36.

Schmitt, N., Schmitt, D., & Clapham, C. (2001). Developing and exploring the behav-iour of two new versions of the vocabulary levels test. Language Testing, 18(1), 55-88.

Schmitt, N., & Zimmerman, C. B. (2002). Derivative word forms: What do learners know? TESOL Quarterly, 36(2), 145-171.

Wang, M., Cheng, C., & Chen, S. (2006). Contribution of morphological awareness to Chinese-English biliteracy acquisition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(3), 542.

24

Waring, R. (1997). A comparison of the receptive and productive vocabulary sizes of some second language learners. Retrieved August　4, 2008, from http://www1.harenet.ne.jp/~waring/papers/vocsize.html

Webb, S. (2008). Receptive and productive vocabulary sizes of L2 learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30(1), 79-95.

25